Foreign and Commonwealth Office Expenditure and Running Costs Limits

Baroness Mallalieu: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether there are any proposals to amend the Foreign and Commonwealth Office departmental expenditure limit and running costs limit for 2000-01.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class VII Vote I, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000-2001 will be increased by £96,723,000 from £1,113,610,000 to £1,210,333,000 and the running cost limit will be increased by £17,989,000 from £513,993,000 to £531,982,000. The increase is the net effect of:
	(i) additional provision of £73,935,000 on Section B for UK contributions to United Nations Missions in the former Yugoslavia (includes UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo) and the former Soviet Union, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (Iraq), the United Nations Iraq-Kuwait Observer Mission, the United Nations Mission for the Referendum on Western Sahara, the United Nations Transitional Authority in East Timor, the United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone, the United Nations International Criminal Tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe, the European Community Monitoring Mission and Western European Union Police Mission in Albania.
	(ii) take-up of end year flexibility of £16,264,000 for running costs and £4,799,000 for capital expenditure;
	(iii) a sucessful bid of £1,725,000 against the Capital Modernisation Fund approved by the Chief Secretary.

European Court of Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the annual expenditure of the European Court of Human Rights.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The estimated annual expenditure of the European Court of Human Rights in 2000 is euro 23,082,900.

European Court of Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is the current case-load of the European Court of Human Rights, having regard to all registered applications.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: On 1 September 2000, the European Court of Human Rights had a total of 15,107 registered applications pending.

European Court of Human Rights

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the budgeted expenditure for the European Court of Human Rights is sufficient to enable the Court to determine cases within a reasonable time.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government recognises that, despite a recent increase in the Court's output, there is an imbalance between the number of applications registered and the number of cases determined by the Court. The Government are looking at ways of helping the Court to alleviate the situation in the short term, within the constraints of our overall policy on the Council of Europe budget. The Government are also following closely the Court's consideration of long-term solutions, including changes to procedures, and participate in the Court's consultations with member states of the Council of Europe.

British Tourists in the EU: Safety

Lord Harrison: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	In the light of the recent Foreign and Commonwealth Office Report on the work of United Kingdom consular officials, what action they can take to reduce the number of fatal accidents to British tourists in Spain and other European Union member states.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: We take every opportunity to warn British travellers of the possible dangers they might encounter overseas through regular liaison with travel and tourist organisations and wide distribution of consular publications and travel advice notices. Where possible, we also alert foreign local authorities to potential dangers.

Indonesia: Ministerial Visit

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What matters were discussed by the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Mr John Battle, during his visit to Jakarta in October; and what agreements were reached with the Indonesian authorities.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: As Minister of State responsible for Indonesia in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, John Battle visited Jakarta and Sulawesi from 23-25 October.
	In Jakarta he called on President Wahid, Foreign Minister Shihab and Co-ordinating Minister for Politics and Security Yudhoyono, and the Indonesian Human Rights Commission (Komnasham). Among the topics discussed were West Timor, decentralisation, negotiations between the Irianese and the Indonesian Government on greater autonomy, the humanitarian pause in Aceh and Indonesian efforts to control intercommunal violence in Maluku. This was John Battle's third visit to Indonesia and helped deepen our understanding of Indonesian reform efforts. However no new agreements were reached.

Eritrea/Ethiopia Conflict: Algiers Talks

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What information they have received from the Ethiopian Government about the reasons for its withdrawal from the proximity talks on proposals by President Abdulaziz Buouteflika of Algeria for the delimitation and demarcation of the boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea, compensation and investigation of the origins of the conflict.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Ethiopian Foreign Minister, Seyoum Mesfin, has blamed "the intransigent behaviour of the Eritrean Government" for failing to move the peace process forward, and accused the Eritreans of proposing unacceptable conditions in the Algiers talks.

Sierra Leone: War Crimes Special Court

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether the terms of reference for the United Nations Special Tribunal on war crimes in Sierra Leone have yet been determined.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The details of the proposed Special Court for Sierra Leone are still under discussion at the United Nations.

European Charter of Fundamental Rights

Lord Stoddart of Swindon: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the answer by the Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale on 26 October on closer political integration with the European Union (H.L. Deb., col. 480), what mechanism they will use to stop any attempt by any institution of the European Community, including the European Court of Justice, to make the Charter of Fundamental Rights or any provisions contained in it legally binding on and enforceable in the United Kingdom.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: In June 1999 the Conclusions of the Cologne European Council called for a Charter of Fundamental Rights to be drawn up to make those rights more visible. It was agreed that the charter would be drafted by a body called the Convention, consisting of 15 member states' representatives, 16 MEPs, 30 national parliamentarians and one Commissioner.
	The Convention met regularly from December 1999 to October 2000. It circulated a final draft on 2 October. This was discussed by Heads of Government at the Biarritz Informal Council on 13-14 October. They agreed that the charter should be proclaimed as a political declaration at the Nice European Council in December. Copies of the charter text have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.
	The Government strongly support the charter. People need to know their rights and the EU institutions need to respect them. The charter will help on both counts. It sets out fundamental rights and principles that the EU institutions should respect when going about their daily business, and it promotes the visibility and accessibility of those rights.
	The charter is not legally binding. It is addressed to the EU institutions, and to member states only when they are implementing Union law (Article 51(1)). It does not establish any new power or task for the Community or the Union or modify powers and tasks defined by the Treaties (Article 51(2)). It does not create any new powers for the ECJ. In deciding how to interpret fundamental rights, the ECJ is now, and will remain, free to have regard to relevant material. That may include the charter.
	Individual charter articles should be read in the context of the declaration as a whole, including the horizontal provisions. The meaning and scope of articles derived from the European Convention on Human Rights shall be the same as that in the corresponding ECHR articles (Article 52(3)). Charter articles based on EC/EU Treaty rights shall be exercised under the conditions and within the limits defined by those Treaties (Article 52(2)). Other articles make clear that the rights they concern are given effect only to the extent that they have effect in national laws and practices.
	The Government believe the charter will be good for Britain and good for Europe. Its successful negotiation is a vindication of our policy of positive engagement with our European partners. The charter cannot become legally binding unless all member states agree. We have made our opposition clear.

European Charter of Fundamental Rights

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they support the proposal that the European Charter of Fundamental Rights should become mandatory.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: No. The Government welcome the charter as a valuable political declaration of rights, freedoms and principles recognised within the EU. It has said from the beginning that the declaratory approach is the best way to enhance visibility while preserving legal certainty.

Inter-Governmental Conference

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their preferred date for the next Inter-Governmental Conference between European Union member states.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The current Inter-Governmental Conference should make the changes necessary to allow the next wave of enlargement to proceed. We have made clear our view that when the Union next discusses Treaty changes, the first new members should be at the table.

European Constitution

Lord Howell of Guildford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What is their policy towards the eventual creation of a European constitution.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The Government have made clear their opposition to a federal super-state. We want a United Europe of States, not a United States of Europe.

Burma

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they sought to engage China in finding a solution to the situation in Burma when hosting the October 2000 United Kingdom/China dialogue meeting; and, if so, to what effect.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The UK/China Human Rights Dialogue process specifically addresses the human rights situation in China and does not cover third country situations. The situation in Burma was not discussed during the fifth round of the Human Rights Dialogue held in London between 16-18 October.

North Korea: Diplomatic Relations

Lord Moynihan: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether their decision to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea was discussed with Japan beforehand; and whether the decision carried the support of the Japanese Government.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The decision to establish diplomatic relations with North Korea was not discussed with Japan beforehand. The Foreign Secretary raised it with the Japanese Foreign Minister when they met at the ASEM III Summit in Seoul. Mr Kono warmly welcomed the decision.

Departmental Cars

Lord Hoyle: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord McIntosh of Haringey on 16th October (WA 68), what is the policy of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in relation to the disposal of Government cars after use.

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: The FCO aims to maximise income from the disposal of surplus official vehicles. In the UK, vehicles are sold at public auction. At posts overseas, disposal is arranged through public auction or competitive tender.
	The Cabinet Office will reply separately regarding the disposal of vehicles supplied by the Government Car and Despatch Agency.

Learning and Skills Council: Strategic Guidance

Baroness Goudie: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they will be issuing their strategic guidance to the new Learning and Skills Council.

Baroness Blackstone: The Secretary of State has today sent his remit letter to Bryan Sanderson, the Chairman of the Learning and Skills Council, setting out the Government's strategic vision and the key priorities for the first three years of the Council's operation. Copies of the letter have been placed in the Library.

Ministerial and MPs' Salaries and Allowances

Lord Graham of Edmonton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When was the last review and settlement of salaries and allowances for Ministers in the House of Commons; Ministers in the House of Lords; and Members of the House of Commons.

Baroness Jay of Paddington: Salaries and allowances for Ministers, Members of the House of Commons and Peers were last reviewed in 1996 by the Senior Salaries Review Body (SSRB). Salaries of Ministers in the House of Lords below Cabinet level were revised last year following SSRB's forty-third report (CM 4246). Salaries in the House of Commons, including those of Ministers, and salaries of Ministers in the Lords are uprated annually on 1 April each year. Allowances in both Houses follow the Retail Price Index and are uprated annually.

Health Care and the Third Way

Lord Patten: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Since the last general election, which policy changes have been made by Ministers regarding the National Health Service that have been specifically related to the Third Way approach to health care; and on what dates.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I refer the noble Lord to the reply given to him by my noble friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton on 25 October 2000 at col. WA34.

Rehab: Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocation Centre

Lord Morris of Manchester: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What representations they have received concerning the future of Rehab UK's Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocation Centre.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The Department of Health has received one representation about the future of Rehab UK's Greater Manchester Brain Injury Vocation Centre.

NMEC: County Court Judgments

Baroness Seccombe: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many County Court judgments were outstanding against the New Millennium Experience Company as at--
	(a) 31 May;
	(b) 30 June;
	(c) 31 July;
	(d) 31 August; and
	(e) 30 September.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton: The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has advised that over the lifetime of the Millennium Experience project there have been four County Court judgments against the company. These are as follows:
	
		
			 Date of Judgement Paid Removed 
			 December 1999 Yes No* 
			 March 2000 Yes Yes 
			 April 2000 Yes No* 
			 June 2000 Yes Yes 
		
	
	*Following payment subsequent to notification of the judgments these should have been removed. NMEC is taking steps to have them so removed.

Peers' Subsistence and Secretarial Allowances

Lord Jenkin of Roding: asked the Chairman of Committees:
	What are the new limits for the subsistence and secretarial elements of the Peers' Reimbursement Allowance scheme with effect from 1 August 2000.

Lord Boston of Faversham: The resolution of the House of 20 July 1994 provided for the limits of the subsistence and secretarial allowances to be uprated annually on 1 August in line with the increase in the Retail Prices Index over the previous 12 months to July.
	Accordingly, the limits wthin which Lords may be reimbursed expenses incurred were increased with effect from 1 August 2000 and are as follows:
	
		
			 Overnight subsistence £84.00 
			 Day subsistence £37.00 
			 Secretarial costs £36.00 
			 Secretarial costs for non-sitting  periods £1,080 a year

Chardon LL Maize Hearing

Baroness Gould of Potternewton: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Following the Written Answer given by Baroness Hayman to the House on 31 October 2000, Official Report, col. WA 94, whether they will report further progress on the Chardon LL hearing currently under way in the UK.

Baroness Hayman: In agreement with Agriculture Ministers in the devolved administrations, we have asked Mr Alun Alesbury--the person appointed to conduct the hearing--to consider adjourning the Chardon LL hearing until further notice pending further consideration of the testing system used by France to establish distinctness, uniformity and stability.
	Details of the French testing system were given in the MAFF press notice of 31 October. Other member states in the EU also rely on French data, and the views of the Commission on the status of the French procedures are being sought.

Lord Chancellor's Department: Expenditure and Running Costs Limits

Baroness Mallalieu: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What proposals they have to amend the Lord Chancellor's Department Departmental Expenditure Limit and running costs limits for 2000-01.

Lord Irvine of Lairg: Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimate for Class V, Vote 1, the Lord Chancellor's Department Departmental Expenditure Limit for 2000-01 will be increased by £113,252,000 from £2,525,609,000 to £2,638,861,000. The increase is the net effect of take-up of End Year Flexibility entitlement of; £10,000,000 to fund additional costs relating to new tasks undertaken by the Legal Services Commission; £6,000,000 to meet publicity and information costs for the Community Legal Service; £6,000,000 in respect of costs for the Public Trust Office Change Programme; £8,600,000 in respect of start-up costs for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; £1,900,000 in respect of costs for the Libra project; £1,925,000 for the Invest to Save Budget payment to the Land Registry; £1,586,000 relating to asylum costs; a transfer from the Home Office of £113,000 in respect of contribution towards costs of the Immigration Services Tribunal; a transfer from the Home Office of £273,000 in respect of PHOENIX, a project funded by the Invest to Save Budget; £1,355,000 in respect of an award from the Invest to Modernise Fund; and £75,500,000 from the DEL Reserve to meet additional costs on asylum and immigration.
	The running cost limit for Lord Chancellor's Department Class V, Vote 1 will be increased by £53,409,000 from £541,908,000 to £595,317,000. The increase is caused by take-up of End Year Flexibility entitlement of £4,000,000 to meet publicity costs for the Community Legal Service; £6,000,000 in respect of costs for the Public Trust Office Change Programme; £5,300,000 in respect of start-up costs for the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service; £1,900,000 in respect of costs for the Libra project; £1,586,000 relating to asylum costs; a transfer of £6,400,000 from capital grants expenditure to meet costs in respect of the Libra project; a transfer from the Home Office of £113,000 in respect of contribution towards costs of the Immigration Services Tribunal; a transfer from the Home Office of £273,000 in respect of PHOENIX, a project funded by the Invest to Save Budget; £1,355,000 in respect of an award from the Invest to Modernise Fund; £300,000 in respect of a correction to the accounting treatment for sundry income and £26,182,000 from the DEL Reserve to meet additional costs on asylum and immigration.
	The increases will be offset by transfers from the Home Office Departmental Expenditure Limit, take up of End Year Flexibility entitlement, an award from the Invest to Modernise Fund and charges on the DEL Reserve, and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987: Charges

Lord Berkeley: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 18 October (WA 91) on the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987, what charges were incurred and owed for each of the last five years by carriers registered in (a) the United Kingdom (b) each other European Union member state; and (c) other countries.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The information requested is currently unavailable and could only be obtained at a disproportionate cost.

Human Rights: Protocol No. 12

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 October (WA 14), whether there is any basis in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights or in any other international or comparative jurisprudence to support the Government's concern that the European Court of Human Rights might interpret Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights in a way which did not allow objective and reasonably justified distinctions; and, if not, what is the basis for the Government's concern.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The current case law of the European Court of Human Rights suggests that objective and reasonably justified distinctions do not constitute discrimination for the purposes of Article 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights. But the Court's interpretation of the Convention evolves and it is not bound by previous judgments. It was for this reason that we sought, though without success, for this principle to be included in the text of the Protocol itself.

Human Rights: Protocol No. 12

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 October (WA 14), whether there is any basis in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights or in any other international or comparative jurisprudence to suggest that the European Court of Human Rights would not interpret Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights in a way which enabled contracting states to take positive and proportionate measures to overcome the effects of past discrimination and to promote the effective enjoyment of equality of treatment without discrimination; and, if not, what is the basis for the Government's concern.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: It may be that the European Court of Human Rights would hold that positive and proportionate action to overcome the effects of past discrimination did not constitute discrimination for the purposes of Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights. We consider, however, and have argued without success, that there should be some specific provision to this effect in the text of the Protocol itself.

Human Rights: Protocol No. 12

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by Lord Bassam of Brighton on 23 October (WA 13), which human rights and which international agreement the Government have in mind in relation to their concern that the European Court of Human Rights might hold (under Protocol 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights) that such rights are protected against discrimination under Protocol 12.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: There are a number of provisions in international agreements--for instance, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights--which it has not been thought appropriate to incorporate into the law of the United Kingdom because, for example, they are aspirational. There is nothing in the text of Protocol 12, or even in its preamble, to exclude these rights from the coverage of the Protocol.

Human Rights: Protocol No. 12

Lord Lester of Herne Hill: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Bassam of Brighton on 25 October (WA 45), whether they signed the Political Declaration adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 13 October at the conclusion of the European Conference Against Racism; and, if so, what are their reasons for being willing to adopt this statement while being unwilling to sign and ratify Protocol No. 12 to the European Convention on Human Rights on behalf of the United Kingdom.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The Government have signed the Political Declaration. They thus committed themselves to considering signature and ratification, as soon as possible and without reservations, of relevant universal and European human rights instruments for which such action had not yet been taken. The Government did not sign Protocol 12 when it was opened for signature in Rome on 4 November and have no present plans to do so, but they have not indefinitely ruled out signature and ratification. They will keep their position under consideration in the light of the interpretation of the Protocol by the European Court of Human Rights.

Northern Ireland: Immigration Detention

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	When they expect to publish the review of the use of immigration detention in Northern Ireland, promised during the proceedings on the Immigration and Asylum Bill.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: The review to which the noble Lord refers involves consideration by immigration officials in conjunction with colleagues in the Northern Ireland Prison Service as to the most appropriate place for the detention of Immigration Act Detainees who are encountered there. Everyone agrees that the current arrangements, where male detainees are accommodated with convicted prisoners are far from ideal.
	The review has needed to take into account the needs of the detainees; their friends, relatives and representatives but the solution must also be cost effective. We will also consider the views expressed by the Northern Ireland Law Centre in its report on the detention of asylum seekers in Northern Ireland. Various meetings and discussions have taken place but there is still more work to do. We are expecting to reach a conclusion by the end of this year. However, the Government do not see any need to publish the details of the deliberations, but we will, of course, make known the intended course of action when this has been decided.

Immigration Detainees: Prison Service Accommodation

Lord Avebury: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What are the terms of the agreements between the Immigration and Nationality Department and the Prison Services in England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively under which the Prison Services make accommodation available within their estate for Immigration Act detainees; and what is the current number of places being provided in prisons in each jurisdiction for this purpose.

Lord Bassam of Brighton: In 1994 Ministers agreed that the Prison Service would provide approximately 500 places for immigration detainees to be held in prisons. No formal contract or service level agreement was made at the time.
	In 2000, in pursuit of the Government's long-term strategy to rationalise and reduce the use of prisons for Immigration Act detainees, the Prison Service and the Immigration and Nationality Department agreed a package to provide immigration detention places separate from convicted prisoners; closer to meeting geographical needs and, in a small number of locations, better to meet the needs of immigration detainees. This included the closure of HMP Aldington and the transfer of the site for development as an Immigration Detention Centre in Spring 2002, and the opening in July 2000 of Lindholme Detainee Centre run by the Prison Service under a four-year service level agreement.
	The current number of places being provided by the Prison Service in England and Wales is 112 in Lindholme, 198 in Rochester and 150 in Haslar, and a small number of places in mainstream prisons which varies from day to day between 70 and 100. In Scotland, 60 places are available at HMP Greenock and in Northern Ireland a small number of places, rarely in excess of seven, at HMPs Magilligan and Maghaberry.
	The Prison Service will soon be making a further 500 places available to the Immigration Service for a period of about one year to support the programme of removals from the United Kingdom, until the new Immigration Service detention centres come on stream during 2001. The location of these further Prison Service places has yet to be determined.

Major Road Schemes

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they will list all the major road schemes costing over £5 million included in the full Local Transport Plans submitted by local authorities; and whether they will place copies of the Appraisal Summary Tables for these, where submitted, in the Library of the House; and
	Whether they will list all major road schemes by each local authority which cost over £5 million and which were submitted to the Government as supplementary bids to the full Local Transport Plan.

Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: A total of 129 proposals for new major transport schemes were contained in the full Local Transport Plans submitted by local authorities in July this year. These include proposals for road, public transport, light rail and heavy rail schemes. A further 10 road schemes were submitted as supplementary bids in response to the opportunity that we extended to authorities to supply additional information in the light of the 10-Year Plan. The table shows all the schemes which are either road schemes or contain a major road element. Those which came forward as supplementary bids are shown in italics. Copies of the Appraisal Summary Tables for these schemes, where they have been provided, will be placed in the Library of the House.
	
		
			 Authority Scheme 
			 Barnsley Cudworth Bypass 
			 Birmingham Northfield Regeneration Scheme 
			  Selly Oak Access Road 
			 Bristol A4 Bath Road--Callington Road Link 
			 Buckinghamshire A418 Route Improvements (Wing Bypass) 
			 Cornwall A39 Camelford Bypass 
			 Cheshire A500-A534 Link Crewe 
			  A34 Alderley Edge Environmental Bypass 
			 Cumbria Carlisle Northern Development Route 
			 Darlington Eastern Transport Corridor 
			 Derbyshire Markham Employment Growth Zone 
			  A6096 Ilkeston Awsworth Link 
			 Devon Barnstaple Western Bypass 
			 Dorset Weymouth Relief Road 
			 Durham A688 Wheatley Hill to Bowburn Link 
			  A167 Chilton Bypass 
			  East Durham Link Road 
			  A689 Sedgefield to Wynard Improvement 
			 East Sussex Newhaven Port Access Road 
			 Essex Canvey Island Integrated Transport Project--Roscommon Way 
			 Gloucestershire Eastern Spine Road 
			 Kent East Kent Access Phase 1 
			  East Kent Access Phase 2 
			 Lancashire M6 Heysham Link Road 
			 Leeds East Leeds Link Road 
			  Inner Ring Road Stage 7 
			 Leicestershire Earl Shilton Bypass 
			  A607 Rearsby Bypass 
			 Lincolnshire A52 Grantham East-West Improvement 
			  A158/C541 Coastal Access Improvement 
			  A1073 Spalding to Eye Improvement 
			 Liverpool City Hall Lane Area Improvement Scheme 
			 Luton East Luton Corridor (South) 
			 Medway A228 Main Rd to Ropers Lane (Phase 1) 
			  A228 Ropers Lane to Isle of Grain (Phase 2) 
			 Middlesbrough East Middlesbrough Transport Corridor 
			 Milton Keynes Bletchley Link 
			 Norfolk Nar Ouse Regeneration Project 
			  Great Yarmouth A47/A149 Link 
			 Newcastle New Tyne Crossing 
			  Scotswood Road Improvement 
			 North Tyneside A1056 Northern Gateway Stage 2 
			  A1056 Northern Gateway Stage 3 
			 Poole Poole Bridge Regeneration Initiative 
			 Reading A33 Interchanges 
			 Rotherham A631 West Bawtry Road Improvement 
			 Rutland Oakham Bypass 
			 Salford A57 Cadishead Way 
			 Sandwell Cradley Heath Town Centre Strategy 
			  Owen Street Level Crossing Relief Road 
			 Sheffield Inner Relief Road--Stages 2 & 3 
			 Somerset North West Taunton Package 
			 Staffordshire Biddulph Inner Bypass 
			  Rugeley Bypass 
			 Stoke-on-Trent Hanley Bentilee Link 
			  City Centre Link 
			 Suffolk South Lowestoft Relief Road 
			  A134 Sudbury Western Bypass 
			 Sunderland Southern Radial Route 
			  Central Route 
			  Hetton Bypass 
			  Doxford Park-Ryhope Link Road 
			 Surrey Kiln Lane Link, Epsom 
			 Tameside The Glossop Spur 
			 Thurrock West Thurrock Regeneration Ring Road 
			 Wakefield Hemsworth--A1 Link Road 
			  Glasshoughton Coalfields Link Road 
			 Walsall Town Centre Transport Package 
			 Warrington Bridgefoot Environmental Enhancement 
			  Manchester Ship Canal Crossing Facilities 
			 Warwickshire Barford Bypass 
			  Rugby Western Relief Road 
			 West Sussex A24 Horsham--Capel Improvement 
			 Wigan Integrated Transport Scheme 
			 Wiltshire Salisbury Transport Study Package 
			  Western Wiltshire Sustainable Transport  Package 
			 Worcestershire Wyre Piddle Bypass